Re:I made an ls alternative for my personal use
by jeffbee on Sunday November 24, 2024 @02:26PM
(#42229796)
On my system it uses twice as much CPU as plain old ls in a directory with just 13k files. To recursively list a directory with 500k leaf files, lla needs > 10x as much CPU. Apparently it is both slower and with higher complexity.
Re:I made an ls alternative for my personal use
by inquisitive-me on Sunday November 24, 2024 @02:44PM
(#42229929)
But it’s written in rust so it’s super fast. Did you take that into account when running your benchmarks? /s
Re:I made an ls alternative for my personal use
by triyanox on Sunday November 24, 2024 @06:53PM
(#42231724)
Will definitely prioritize optimization in the next releases. Planning to benchmark against ls on various systems and file counts to get this properly sorted.
Re:I made an ls alternative for my personal use
by niek_pas on Monday November 25, 2024 @10:08AM
(#42236883)
Not trying to “gotcha” you, but I would imagine that 10x the CPU of ls is still very little, or am I wrong?
Re:I made an ls alternative for my personal use
by jeffbee on Monday November 25, 2024 @10:21AM
(#42237004)
In the case of the 500k tree, `lla` needs 2.5 seconds, so it's pretty substantial.
Re:I made an ls alternative for my personal use
by echoangle on Monday November 25, 2024 @05:36PM
(#42240848)
Is listing a lot of files really CPU-limited? Isn’t the problem IO speed?
Re:I made an ls alternative for my personal use
by matheusmoreira on Monday November 25, 2024 @07:44PM
(#42241575)
What exactly makes ls faster?
Efficient file listing: Optimized for speed, even in large directories
What exactly is it doing differently to optimize for speed? Isn't it just using the regular fs lib?